A Picture May Be Worth 1,000 Words, but Is It Worth a Letter? Examining Whether the Choice of Label Affects the Perception of Speech Sounds
Publication: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume 67, Number 7
Pages 2115-2127
Abstract
Purpose:
Researchers often use identification or goodness rating tasks to assess speech perception for different populations. These tasks provide useful information about a listener's willingness to accept a range of acoustically variable stimuli as belonging to the same category and also about assessing how stimuli that are labeled the same may not be perceived as equally good versions of a particular speech sound. Many methodological aspects of these simple tasks have been tested, but one aspect that has not is the choice of label. In this study, we examine response patterns to images versus letters, as studies with different populations (children vs. adults) or different methods (typical behavioral study vs. visual world paradigm) may vary in the type of label used.
Method:
Eighty-one adult listeners completed phoneme identification and goodness ratings tasks with either images of response options (a picture of a bear and a picture of a pear) or with letter labels (a capital B and P).
Results:
The results suggest that choice of label does not alter performance within the tasks studied here. In addition, the results did show the expected finding that the slope of the response curve is steeper in an identification task than in a goodness rating task.
Conclusion:
These results suggest that it is possible to compare across studies that use different response options, a benefit to research and practice because letter labels can be used for nonimageable words and nonwords, whereas images may be best used for participants who are younger or have poorer reading skills.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Allen, J. S., & Miller, J. L. (2004). Listener sensitivity to individual talker differences in voice-onset-time. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115(6), 3171–3183.
Apfelbaum, K. S., Kutlu, E., McMurray, B., & Kapnoula, E. C. (2022). Don't force it! Gradient speech categorization calls for continuous categorization tasks. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 152(6), 3728–3745.
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge University Press.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
Blomert, L., & Mitterer, H. (2004). The fragile nature of the speech-perception deficit in dyslexia: Natural vs. synthetic speech. Brain and Language, 89(1), 21–26.
Brehm, L., & Alday, P. M. (2022). Contrast coding choices in a decade of mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 125.
Coady, J. A., Evans, J. L., Mainela-Arnold, E., & Kluender, K. R. (2007). Children with specific language impairments perceive speech most categorically when tokens are natural and meaningful. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(1), 41–57.
DiNino, M., Arenberg, J. G., Duchen, A. L. R., & Winn, M. B. (2020). Effects of age and cochlear implantation on spectrally cued speech categorization. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63(7), 2425–2440.
DiNino, M., Wright, R. A., Winn, M. B., & Bierer, J. A. (2016). Vowel and consonant confusions from spectrally manipulated stimuli designed to simulate poor cochlear implant electrode-neuron interfaces. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140(6), 4404–4418.
Eisner, F., & McQueen, J. M. (2005). The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 67(2), 224–238.
Ganong, W. F. (1980). Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6(1), 110–125.
Harel, D., & McAllister, T. (2019). Multilevel models for communication sciences and disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62(4), 783–801.
Holt, L. L., & Lotto, A. J. (2010). Speech perception as categorization. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(5), 1218–1227.
Kapnoula, E. C., Winn, M. B., Kong, E. J., Edwards, J., & McMurray, B. (2017). Evaluating the sources and functions of gradiency in phoneme categorization: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(9), 1594–1611.
Kraljic, T., & Samuel, A. G. (2006). Generalization in perceptual learning for speech. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 262–268.
Kraljic, T., & Samuel, A. G. (2007). Perceptual adjustments to multiple speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(1), 1–15.
Ladefoged, P., & Broadbent, D. E. (1957). Information conveyed by vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 29(1), 98–104.
Lenth, R. (2021). Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means (R Package Version 1.6.1). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/emmeans/index.html
Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74(6), 431–461.
Liberman, A. M., Harris, K. S., Hoffman, H. S., & Griffith, B. C. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54(5), 358–368.
Lüdecke, D., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Patil, I., Waggoner, P., & Makowski, D. (2021). Performance: An R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(60), Article 3139.
Mann, V. A., & Repp, B. H. (1980). Influence of vocalic context on perception of the [∫]-[s] distinction. Perception & Psychophysics, 28(3), 213–228.
McMurray, B., Farris-Trimble, A., Seedorff, M., & Rigler, H. (2016). The effect of residual acoustic hearing and adaptation to uncertainty on speech perception in cochlear implant users: Evidence from eye-tracking. Ear and Hearing, 37(1), e37–e51.
McMurray, B., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2002). Gradient effects of within-category phonetic variation on lexical access. Cognition, 86(2), B33–B42.
Moberly, A. C., Lowenstein, J. H., Tarr, E., Caldwell-Tarr, A., Welling, D. B., Shahin, A. J., & Nittrouer, S. (2014). Do adults with cochlear implants rely on different acoustic cues for phoneme perception than adults with normal hearing? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(2), 566–582.
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2003). Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 204–238.
O'Brien, G. E., McCloy, D. R., Kubota, E. C., & Yeatman, J. D. (2018). Reading ability and phoneme categorization. Scientific Reports, 8(1), Article 16842.
Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8–13.
Pisoni, D. B., & Tash, J. (1974). Reaction times to comparisons within and across phonetic categories. Perception & Psychophysics, 15(2), 285–290.
R Development Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org
Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.
Schütt, H., Harmeling, S., Macke, J., & Wichmann, F. (2015). Psignifit 4: Pain-free Bayesian inference for psychometric functions. Journal of Vision, 15(12), Article 474.
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464.
Theodore, R. M., & Miller, J. L. (2010). Characteristics of listener sensitivity to talker-specific phonetic detail. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(4), 2090–2099.
Tuller, B., Jantzen, M. G., & Jirsa, V. K. (2008). A dynamical approach to speech categorization: Two routes to learning. New Ideas in Psychology, 26(2), 208–226.
Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 779–804.
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984). Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross-language speech perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75(6), 1866–1878.
Whittingham, M. J., Stephens, P. A., Bradbury, R. B., & Freckleton, R. P. (2006). Why do we still use stepwise modelling in ecology and behaviour? Journal of Animal Ecology, 75(5), 1182–1189.
Wichmann, F. A., & Hill, N. J. (2001). The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(8), 1293–1313.
Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., D'Agostino McGowan, L., Francois, R., & Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), Article 1686.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume 67 • Number 7 • July 2024
Pages: 2115-2127
PubMed: 38754023
Copyright
Copyright © 2024 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
History
- Received: Oct 2, 2023
- Revised: Dec 28, 2023
- Accepted: Apr 1, 2024
- Published online: May 16, 2024
- Published in issue: Jul 9, 2024
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Metrics
View all metricsCitations
Download article citation data for:
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
Sign In Options
ASHA member? If so, log in with your ASHA website credentials for full access.
Member Login